Search results

Meh, after 11 years I still think I do it better than most and always with a lot of love, even if you don't see it :p

All true, just get rid of the stupidity comment. "If" one is stupid, it doesn't make a whit if you say it, they'll never get it. It is dismissive and it doesn't matter intent: always an insult. If not stupid? Then you've yet started shutting down conversation with a value statement...

Or simplicity? Yes it does and I'll show you in a moment...* "Being" and 'exist' are not mutually exclusive. You are parsing, simply and only because you are an Open Theist, thus you must. *Did you know some versions actually say 'exist?' ▲ These two statements disagree with one another▲...

Superimposed rationality. Superimposed. You think this a logical statement but it is not. Creation 'didn't' exist before it did. God couldn't have known 'how' to Create except through a evolutionary series of mistakes and corrections. "T-Rex killing everything? Oops! I'll start...

🆙

Some will say yes, others will say no. It depends on what you mean by sovereign. Such is Open Theism by concern, not Mid Acts. The two are exclusive from each other, but most Open Theists are also Mid Acts. Most Mid Acts are not Open Theists.

This one not a major doctrinal difference. I went to Multnomah Bible Seminary, they taught basically all this and let us simply have the evidence. I used to think Paul likely wrote Hebrews simply because tradition had set him as author but there are many good reasons to question whether...

Thank you, either conveniently missed this for its further length, or just missed it (just missed it, haven't had much time lately). Better: "What support do you have?" Answer: You cannot have 'infinity +1.' Why? Because it breaks the very definition of what infinity means. For...

Excellent post on point:

I'm not too caught up on this particular simply because it is scripture and it doesn't matter too much, 'who' wrote it. @Bladerunner God certainly was behind it. I tend toward your inclination, maybe not 'definitely not' as with you. Evidence seems to me, that Paul didn't write it. Right...

Your are confusing Judaizing with Jews. They aren't the same. There is a difference. Question: What is that difference? It is important. You may need to read Galatians to be able to grasp the answer. It isn't obscure, fairly evident but I can help if need be. The question: What...

I will come back to the larger portion as time allows. At the moment, however, is an embrace of agreement, despite what we deem cognitive dissonance in/from the other (a forest for trees observation). It is my estimation Open Theism gives up too much ground of the nature of God and honor...

Realize I have been where you are at. I've been called Mid Acts because I'm definitely grace theology, but it means, without knowing I was Mid Acts, I'm likely Mid Acts simply because of this particular. In a nutshell, after wrestling a long time with James with Galatians and Ephesians, I...

Not really a point of contention. No, not at all. Question: Do you take a sword against all ungodly neighbors today? Why not? The answer from Mid Acts is along the same reasoning. Yes. I think frustration reigns after a lot of the same conversation over and over. This thread I...

Request: Go back up and try a line-by-line response to his post #203 (or if he likes, one more important to him, but #203 for me). I'll try to help as if I were you for a template (realize I'm only able to guess and will have some of it wrong): (Asking questions helps to dig over the...

1) I didn't intend to, but this is my prerogative ▲ 2) Sure, my first drafts aren't gold. Never have been. I wasn't picking on LCD, went quite a long ways to ask simply because I didn't want to assume. 3) You were out of conversation several pages ago. If you say something intelligent...

Was at one time. Whether this particular is from an unbliever, you and I don't know. Rather it was an accurate discussion of time and important intimations upon its premise. Baloney. He said "stupid." That was the end of the rebuttal. Saying it doesn't make it so. It is the only...

Nope. You need to read the link. It gives all perspectives on time as well as respecting the need for time to be ontological in science. Not only that, it was a rebuttal to 'stupid.' Who are we to call PhD's 'stupid?' It isn't that we can't say it, but hesitantly no? I better well...

Because 'see' can mean so many things. It doesn't always have to mean 'discovery.' Rather to see is just and only 'see.' To witness, to be with, etc. etc. etc. Open Theism draws a narrow view, forgive the unintended pun, but it illustrates the need.

Harvard disagrees with you. Harvard disagrees with you. Saying it doesn't make it so, nor is this ANY kind of rebuttal. It is relegated to rubbish and unworthy of my time. It matters not a whit what you think is stupid. It really doesn't and you are wasting your and my 'time.' By...